With the rise of digitalization, ticketing systems for live events and ensuring competition within these systems have become critically important for both consumer rights and market dynamics. In this context, two significant decisions issued by the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) and the US Department of Justice (DOJ) illustrate the steps taken to protect competition in the ticketing market and the effects of these measures.
The ACM accepted the commitments offered by Ticketmaster as part of its investigation into potential barriers that consumers may face when reselling their mobile tickets through resale platforms other than Ticketmaster.
Meanwhile, the DOJ filed an antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation Entertainment Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary Ticketmaster LLC (Live Nation-Ticketmaster) for monopolization and anticompetitive conduct in the live entertainment industry. This action, which includes claims for injunctive relief, seeks to restore competition in the live concert industry, offer better choices for audiences at more affordable prices, and provide more venues for musicians and other performing artists.
This article discusses the ACM's decision concerning Ticketmaster and the DOJ's antitrust case against Live Nation-Ticketmaster, evaluating the impacts of both decisions on market competition and consumer rights.
1. Ticketmaster Decision of ACM
The Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) acted within the framework of fundamental competition law principles when investigating Ticketmaster's practices in the ticketing market. The ACM's intervention specifically aimed to prevent potential harm to consumers from vertical integration and network effects in the ticketing market. With this decision, the ACM prevented a powerful market player such as Ticketmaster from restricting consumers' resale rights and hindering the development of innovation and alternative service providers in the market. In competition law, such vertical restraints carry the risk of market foreclosure and may reduce consumer welfare.
In assessing Ticketmaster's restrictions on the resale of mobile tickets, the ACM examined the extent to which these practices affected competition in the ticketing market. The commitments offered by Ticketmaster were, in fact, considered a form of settlement. These commitments aimed to prevent Ticketmaster from abusing its dominant market position by steering consumers toward a particular platform. Thus, the existence of different ticketing platforms in the market and the promotion of competition among these platforms were ensured. From a competition law perspective, such commitments are crucial for balancing market forces and protecting consumer preferences.
The acceptance of Ticketmaster's commitments regarding mobile ticket transfer, when evaluated within the framework of European Union competition law, indicates that such practices can set a precedent not only in the ticketing sector but also in other digital service markets. To ensure effective competition in the market and prevent monopolization, extending consumer rights by digital service providers through such commitments could serve as a guide in similar cases in the future.
2. DOJ Case Against Live Nation-Ticketmaster
The antitrust case brought by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) against Live Nation-Ticketmaster is much more comprehensive and complex in terms of competition law. This case targets the monopolistic practices of Live Nation-Ticketmaster under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Under competition law, the Sherman Act is one of the cornerstones of US antitrust law, providing strict sanctions against monopolization.
The DOJ's allegations are that Live Nation-Ticketmaster abused its dominant position in the market to exert significant market power over both artists and venues. The use of this power to prevent other competitors from entering the market is considered behavior that may lead to market foreclosure under competition law. In competition law, market foreclosure refers to strategies that make it difficult or impossible for competitors to operate in the market and is seen as a consequence of practices that lead to violations of competition law.
Another critical issue at the center of the case is the allegations regarding Live Nation-Ticketmaster's business model, which it calls the "wheel." The DOJ argues that this business model is designed to consolidate a monopoly in the ticketing and concert promotion markets. This model enables Live Nation-Ticketmaster to use its financial power to make artists and venues dependent on it. In terms of competition law, this may be considered an abuse of vertical integration. Vertical integration means that a company operates at different stages in the supply chain; in this case, Live Nation-Ticketmaster was vertically integrated in both the ticketing and concert promotion markets and used this integration to restrict competition.
The DOJ argues that Live Nation-Ticketmaster's anticompetitive use of its market power not only harms consumers but also violates the rights of artists and independent promoters. The structural measures sought by the DOJ in the proceedings aim to weaken Live Nation-Ticketmaster's market dominance and restore competition. In competition law, structural measures usually involve more drastic remedies, such as spinning off companies or divesting certain assets. These measures are implemented when deemed necessary to ensure competition in the market and aim to change the existing structure.
Another critical point of the case is Live Nation-Ticketmaster's relationship with Oak View Group and the use of this relationship to restrict competition. In competition law, such collaborations constitute a combination of market forces that limit competition and make it difficult for new entrants to enter the market. The DOJ's allegations show that Oak View Group acted as a "hammer" and a "guardian" for Live Nation-Ticketmaster, meaning it engaged in anticompetitive activities. In the context of competition law, such collaborations may be considered illegal to protect market share and maintain monopolies.
The DOJ also alleges that Live Nation-Ticketmaster developed a series of strategies to limit competition by preventing rival undertakings from entering the market. These strategies put pressure on independent venues, preventing them from working with other ticketing companies and thus stifling competition. Under competition law, such exclusionary behavior is considered an abuse of a dominant position and is generally subject to severe sanctions.
Recently, the Attorneys General of Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico, South Dakota, Utah, and Vermont joined the civil antitrust lawsuit initiated by the Department of Justice, along with 29 other states and the District of Columbia, against Live Nation-Ticketmaster. The lawsuit alleges monopolization and other illegal practices, violating Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.
With the inclusion of these new states, the case now comprises 40 co-plaintiffs, who, alongside the DOJ, have filed an amended complaint in the Southern District of New York. This amended complaint provides further details regarding Live Nation-Ticketmaster's anticompetitive conduct across various markets within the live entertainment industry.
As a result, the DOJ's case against Live Nation-Ticketmaster targets a series of practices that violate the fundamental principles of competition law. If the DOJ succeeds in this case, it will be an important step toward restoring competition in the live concert industry in the US. This case may also serve as a deterrent against similar monopolistic behavior in other sectors.
Conclusion
These two decisions by the ACM and the DOJ are of great importance for ensuring competition in the ticketing market and protecting consumer rights. The ACM's decision against Ticketmaster allows consumers to freely choose to resell their tickets, while the DOJ's case against Live Nation-Ticketmaster aims to prevent monopolistic practices in the sector. These two decisions are considered important steps toward protecting competition in the ticketing market and providing better service to consumers. In the future, similar lawsuits and regulatory interventions are expected to play a greater role in safeguarding market dynamics and consumer rights.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.